Home / Articles / Myth of Obama’s world sans nuclear weapon–Global Zero

Myth of Obama’s world sans nuclear weapon–Global Zero

Prague speech, on April 05 2009, was the first off the rails articulation by President Obama after assumption of presidency: “First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons… we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy … we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians…my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)… the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials… we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty…” Peace loving people all over the World were pleasantly surprised. They thought the promised Messiah has become, realists scorned it off, asserting that he would become a ‘normal American President’, rather soon.  It is interesting to explore the viability about myth of Obama’s world sans nuclear weapons—Global Zero.

His Prague comments had add refreshing music to ears:  “And as nuclear power –-as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act…I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”. … Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.”

It appeared as if Obama was reading from the long forgotten “old testament”—the NPT. Russians went along and signed START III, counties from all over the world flocked to join the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) process.

Countdown of Obama’s White House days has begun, so he is making a last ditch effort to leave behind a legacy. global-zeroAnd as there is none, he is trying to manufacture one on nuclear turf,  by pushing through a UNSC resolution in support of CTBT; which the US is yet to ratify. His whole gambit of Global Zero had been a double speak. Practically, he helped nuclear proliferation in many ways. He allocated over a trillion dollar for a phased upgrade of American nuclear weapon programme; scuttled Fissile Material Treaty by not accepting to account-for existing stocks: under the garb of Nuclear Security Summit process, he advocated that NSS members transfer their surplus fissile materials to the US for safe keeping—some stooges complied; persistently kept appeasing India to strengthen Indo-US Agreement 123—an icon of horizontal proliferation etc.  It added to Indian arrogance leading to its walking away from arms control and arms reduction talks with Pakistan. India has also not agreed to Pakistan’s latest proposal of converting their respective unilateral voluntary moratoria on nuclear testing into a formal bilateral arrangement.

And what he did to de-operationalized nuclear warheads under START III, instead of destroying them, Obama ordered their safe storage from where they could be operationalized on short notice. Frustrated with Obama’s duplicity, Russians walked away from the NSS process, and did not move beyond Start III.

While castigating Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes, Obama slammed biting sanctions against the two. At the same time he chose to close his eyes on a nuclear city coming up close to Southern India’s village Challekere, for setting-up a thermonuclear weapons factory. He also chose to keep mum on 200 Israeli nuclear war heads, all targeted on Tehran.  Despite repeated recommendations by the NPT review conferences, he took no practical steps for setting up a WMD free zone in the Middle East.

Obama wants to ensure Indian entry to Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) through backdoor—country specific waiver— before he leaves White House, special plenary of NSG is likely to meet in Geneva before Obama leaves presidency. On the eve of earlier plenary Obama had made personal effort to gate crash India into NSG; Secretary of State John Kerry had written a letter to member states to let India in by setting aside the laid down criteria. However it did not work. America is also desperate in getting India into other strategic trade regimes, Indian has already parachuted into Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), despite the fact that its strategic export control regimes are not in compliance with MTCR and other regimes.

India submitted its application for membership of the NSG on May 12. Pakistan did the same on May 19. China and at least seven other countries blocked the consensus. China took the principled stand that entry to NSG should be through a criteria applicable to all non-NPT members. So for signing the NPT is one of the mandatory step for any country desirous of joining the NSG.

Countries that opposed India’s NSG membership application during Seoul plenary included China, Russia, Brazil, Austria, New Zealand, Ireland, Mexico and Turkey. To India’s shock, some of the countries that had initially pledged support for its candidature did not do so at the meeting. What surprised many in New Delhi is Mexico and Switzerland’s stand since both countries had promised support during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit a few weeks ago. Brazil was also a surprise since India counted it in its solid support. Turkey took the bold stance by suggesting that applications by Pakistan and India should be clubbed together, which is the way forward.

Indians were quick to engage China at all levels. The latest negotiations took place on September 13; it failed to make any breakthrough on the issue. China made it clear that it would oppose India’s entry into the NSG, unless the cartel opened its door to Pakistan too. China conveyed that it would remain firm on its stand that the NSG should adopt a “two-step approach” to address the issue of admitting new members. They pointed out that China would like the NSG to first “explore” — through “an open and transparent” process — and reach an agreement on a “non-discriminatory formula” to deal with the issue of granting membership to the countries which had not signed the NPT. Once the formula is adopted by the NSG, the cartel should move to the second stage to take up the “country-specific membership issues”, press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese government stated.

China has conveyed to India that the issue of the non-NPT states’ participation in the NSG raised “new questions for the group under the new circumstances”. Crux of the question was “how to address the gap between the existing policies and practices of the non-NPT states and the existing international non-proliferation rules and norms”.

Obamas’ predecessor George W Bush, went overboard to sign Indo-US nuclear Agreement 123. In doing so he earned the dubious distinction of setting a global precedence by allowing India to keep eight of its nuclear reactors outside the safe guards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—no other country enjoys this luxury. India chose to keep those eight reactors outside safeguards which were suitable for stealing fissile material—heavy water old technology reactors with slow burn time, allowing ore partake. Fissile material from these reactors is sufficient to produce at least 100 nuclear weapons, of Kilo-ton category, per year. Moreover, the US also went along with Indian refusal to accept any safeguards on its ambitious Fast Breeders Programme, nuclear research facilities, and reactors which it may build indigenously—not a distant goal.

Conclusion.

Obama would most likely go down in the history as a dubious leader, who took cover behind the noble cause of global nuclear non-proliferation to perpetuate American nuclear supremacy, and in a crazy quest to contain China, he added to his predecessor’s effort of propping up a nuclear devil—India. Obama’s successor will have a tough task of getting over the nuclear mistrust that Obama has thrust on America. However, it is doable, first step is to un-knot Indo-US nuclear nexus.

About admin

Check Also

Time to create Rakhine as a Muslim State for Rohingyas

Myanmar insists that Rohingyas are interlopers from Bangladesh despite most of them living for generations in western Rakhine state of Myanmar, they have long been denied basic political rights and liberties. Bangladesh does not accept that Rohingyas have a Bengali lineage. Anthropologists believe that Rohingya roots trace back to Saudi Arabia, who migrated to Myanmar (Burma) around 7th & 8th century AC. Except Bangladesh and Myanmar who think such a return as a good idea, there are hardly any buyers of such forced eviction. United Nations doesn’t want forced eviction to happen. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that forcing the first batch of about 2,200 Rohingya living in refugee camps to ground zero of mass violence against the minority Muslim group would be a “clear violation” of core international legal principles. Human Rights groups have called the move “dangerous and premature.” A number of Human Rights groups say “they are shocked”. Even the people who will be affected the most, Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are upset that their future, once again, is being decided without their input.So far Aung Suu Kyi’s leadership performance has been derisive. No one expected governing to be easy for her, as country’s leader. Her election had ended more than a half-century of military rule; yet the hegemony has not retrieved; and Bonapartism is galore. In pursuit of her over ambitious political objectives, she has been used and discredited by Junta. Suu Kyi had declared ending the long-running ethnic insurgencies that have torn the country apart as her top priority, but her lacklustre peace effort has proved ineffective. Ever since fighting between government forces and ethnic groups has been spiralling up. Though World has been shocked by reports that the military has carried out atrocities, including rape and murder, against the Rohingya, Aung Suu has said little on the matter and done even lesser. Her government’s growing suppression of speech on the Internet seems perverse for a onetime democracy icon who spent 15 years under house arrest. No wonders her popularity is on decline. Growth has slowed and foreign investment has dipped significantly. Suu Kyi faces daunting challenges. In rebuilding the country, she must overcome decades of mismanagement and profiteering by previous military governments that enriched the generals and their cronies and brought the economy to its knees. The biggest stain on Suu Kyi’s record may be her government’s brutal treatment of the Rohingya, and her tepid response to it. Prevailing World order is known for acting very fast in Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts where outcome is likely to benefit non-Muslims. And it shows criminal negligence when Muslims are likely to gain through political settlement of any such conflict. When pushed too hard, conflict is settled in a way that it’s a paralytic outcome, ensuring mitigation of equitable advantage to Muslim faction of population. Some of the conflicts like Kashmir and Palestine are deliberately kept on back burners as their settlement would benefit Muslim segment of respective population. Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict also falls in “let ferment” category. Likewise is the situation about Afghan and Yemen crisis, as well as simmering Middle East and North African Muslim countries. Muslims are right to assume that current World Order has not served them a fair deal; and unless there is a significant change in its format, Muslims will continue to be marginalised at state, community and individual levels. But the billion dollar question is that how long the current World Political Order would take to assume ownership of Myanmar crisis? Time has already reached for declaring Rakhine as a sovereign State where Rohingyas could live peacefully and practice their religion peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *